Question: I have a question about names. I am converting to Judaism, and my mikvah date is in just a few weeks. I have been exploring Judaism and learning for about 3 years. I have already picked a Hebrew name, which my rabbi at the time began to call me by. I found that I liked being called my Hebrew name, and began to use that name rather than my birth name/English name. I don't ask my parents or siblings to refer to me by my Hebrew name, though they know I use it. I want to legally change my first name to my Hebrew name. However, a friend suggested that maybe this would be disrespectful to my father, who named me for his deceased mother. My friend made the case that even though my English name is not a Jewish one, since my parents followed the Jewish tradition of naming for a deceased relative, I should not legally change my name. Is it disrespectful to my father to change my name? What is the Jewish perspective on name changes?

Our tradition teaches that we take on many names over our lifetimes. There are legends that tell us that our family know us by one name, while society by another, and God by yet another name.

There are a number of things to consider in your case. As far as I am aware, there is no reason why you cannot change your name. According to Jewish law the new identity you assume upon conversion comes with a new Hebrew name. Preferably a ame that you embody in your identity. It is your decision if you would like to change it to your legal name in accordance with civil law.

Your friend is correct in that assuming Jewish identity means following the commandments set forth by the Torah and the rabbis. One of the most notable commandments is "honor your father and mother". Even though your father is not Jewish, you will still be bound by the mitzvot, which means you must honor him. But that commandment is not specifically seen as relating to passing down a name.

In addition, naming children after deceased relatives is a custom that is meant to serve as a reminder for the child. But this is also a custom and not a law. Customs change much more frequently and have a tendecy to be different accross Jewish communities. For instance, in the Sephardic community, children are often named after living relatives. Changing the name, though, does not deminish the memory or the charge that comes with being named for a specfic person. Your mother's memory can still serve as an inspritiation and blessing for you.

The only way to really know if your father will feel honored or dishonored is to discuss the matter with him. I'm assuming that you have already spoken with him about your conversion. If you have not, and the issue of your name might be touchy, I urge you to proceed carefully. Parents might react negatively to their child's conversion because they might see it as a rejection of the values chosen for development. And even if this is not the case, one should always speak to their parents lovingly. This is your decision and your conversion. But your father is a part of your life and deserves to know how your are growing and living. Involving him in the conversation may be the best way to honor him. And even if you do change your legal name against his wishes, that does not mean your are not honoring him.

Question: May a husband and wife with mutual consent (and assuming niddah, seed spilling, etc. are not an issue) use handcuffs or other restraints or toys to spice things up?
[Admininstrator's Note: Related questions can be found on JVO at:
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=67
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=486
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=978
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/question.php?id=1130]

This is a great and practical question. Sexual intimacy between two married partners is essential to the Jewish tradition. In fact there is a great story in the Torah about a student who sneaks under his teacher's bed. At one point the student hears his teacher (a rabbi) flirting (maybe even fondling) with his wife on the bed. The student reveals himself shortly thereafter and even though the teacher is surprised by the student's presence, he is also understanding about the student's efforts. In response, the student exclaims, "This is, too, is Torah, and I must learn it."

There is a valuable piece of Torah to be learned from sexual intimacy. Song of songs is a wonderful example of what it means to love someone intimately and to be in awe of their beauty. Sex can be a wonderful way to connect with one's partner. It's a moment of vulnerability as much as it is about love. I would argue that the love is what makes the vulnerability possible...

We can chalk all the intimacy, vulnerability, and love involved in sex up to recognizing the divine image inherent in each person. But this also requires that we see them as also have worth and dignity. Taking into consideration your assumptions about niddah and seed spilling, as long as your behavior during sex does not effect your partner's dignity or sense of self worth, and as long as it's meant to improve the sexual relationship between the two of you then there is nothing wrong with using handcuffs and/or retraints.

Question: This question is based upon a question that appeared in the "New York Times" magazine column "The Ethicist." The South Korean ferry tragedy evoked the maxim that the captain should go down with the ship. While, the captain has the duty to ensure the safety of the passengers and do everything in his power to save lives, should he be morally obligated to effectively commit suicide because he made a mistake?

One should not and one is not obligated to commit suicide simply because they make a mistake. Perhaps in biblical times one could suffer the death penalty for a mistake against God. However, most judicial systems today consider each person innocent until proven guilty; requiring some type of evaluatory process before determining somone's fate. It would be foolish to think that the ship captain needed to go down with his ship simply because other people did as well. That statement strikes me more as vindictive and emotional instead of logical and legal.

In fact, the Jewish tradition places a high premium on perserving one's own life. A midrash recalls two men stranded in the desert. Both come across a jug of water. If they share the drink they will both also die since there is not enough to sustain them both. In this case the midrash advocates for only one of the men to enjoy the water since the preservation of one life is better than the loss of two together. Additionally, from a traditional perspective, suicide was deemed an offense to God, prohibited at all costs. Judaism advocates for each individual to sanctify life. And one can only sanctify life if they are alive to do so. In our modern era the Jewish stigma attached to suicide has subsided and allowed for much more compassion to those who would suffer such a fate.

This particular case doesn't even sound like the idea of martydom, which enjoys at least some level of debate. Many scholars suggest that the suicides that took place on Masada in order to dodge the capture by the Romans; and in the Middle Ages to avoid forced baptism are only somewhat justifiable at best. The context of those situations makes a great deal of difference.

That being said, rabbinic literature has occasionally dealt with the question of when it might be permissible to take one's own life. From time to time scholars have noted that if one were to force another to either: take the life of a 3rd person, partake in idolatry, or partake in forbidden sexual behaviors such as incest, then one would be permitted to take their own life and not commit those acts. The reason behind the permission here to allow for one's own death seems to be that it would prevent that same person from taking the life of another.

It should also be noted the high premium Judaism places on saving a life, pikauh nefesh. To do so, would be as the Talmud says, like saving an entire world. From a Jewish perspective it would seem that the captain of the Korean ship, as a result of being the captain, had an obligation to save lives before protecting his own. I would argue that losing his life in the process would have been a tragedy equal to the loss of any life. But I do not think that he would have been required to lose his own life in the process of saving others.

Living in an area with few Jews is always tough. And, sometimes, practicing Judaism in an area with few Jews separates us even more from the larger community. In the 21st century most progressive Jews (Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist) think it’s important to not only maintain a Jewish identity of some kind, defined by some kind of Jewish practice; but to also be part of the larger community that may not be entirely Jewish.

Still, kashrut is ultimately about how we treat the animals who have given their lives to sustain ours. Some Jews won’t eat meat products they know to be unkosher because it would, in effect, signal that they didn’t care about the animal that gave it’s life for that meal. And it would disregards God’s specific command in the Torah to have a specific dietary practice. There is a lot to consider in your question.

Cold dairy, or specifically examples like cold salad, are ways of maintaining strict kashrut practices when eating at non-kosher establishments. It’s a way of making sure that you aren’t eating unkosher meat or had any unkosher products cooked into your food. Still, many progressive Jews will eat hot dairy or parve food in establishments that are not kosher. They might eat plain cheese or veggie pizza, or a veggie burger, or a grilled salmon or tuna dish. One safe way to eat hot food that generally isn’t assumed to have been mixed with a meat product is to eat at all vegan or vegetarian places.

Your question about “priority” is an interesting one. What would maintaining your kosher practice be in priority to? Is it in priority to the team’s food budget? Your relationship to your teammates and not sticking out? Your health and strength as an athlete who generally needs certain foods to maintain the level of athleticism they play at? Is it a priority for you to teach your teammates about who you are and your Jewish heritage by eating kosher food publicly? It’s hard to give answers to these questions without knowing specifically what you are prioritizing your kashrut to. Consider those options and consider how important kashrut is to you.

If it’s easy for you to find kosher food options then you should maintain kosher standards. But if it’s not, and kashrut becomes difficult to maintain, even troublesome, then you may need to consider how important kashrut and kosher food are to you. In terms of priority I would suggest that you look at eating while traveling for sports competitions as isolated incidents where eating kosher food is not that easy; and to not consider these instances as precedent setting. But that also means that when you are home and kosher food is available that you maintain that kosher practice.

It's possible that Esther didn't really have a choice as to who she would marry. Furhtermore, one might be able to make the argument that her act of marriage, given the threatening environment the Jews found themselves in, could be considered a form of pikuah nefesh (saving a life). One might recall the steps Jews took to preserve their lives in Muslim and Christian ruled countries during the medieval period. Then, as well during the Spanish Inquision and the Crusades, Jews took it upon themselves to convert and assume an identity not of their own in order to preserve their lives and that of their family members.

Question: Can we (those of us who feel support for it) feel justified with our sense that Netanyahu was correct in his decision to finally cut privileges of jailed Hamas militants in response to the Palestinian Islamist movement's refusal to allow Red Cross visits to Gilad Shalit for over 5 years? What does Judaism say about this?

Judaism teaches that we are all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27-28). Judaism also accepts that human beings make mistakes. And as human beings we have the opportunity to make right that which we have done wrong. That’s the idea behind teshuvah (repentance) and the High Holidays. We all have an opportunity to make up for the mistakes we have made in the past.

All that being said, I cannot suggest that Judaism encourages that we should cut privileges to prisoners (militant or not) simply as retaliation for the treatment Gilad Shalit suffered while he was imprisoned. Certainly the way he was treated was wrong by all accounts. There is no justifying that. However Judaism posses and idea stated as: midah k’neged midah, or “measure for measure.” We understand this to mean that God punishes or rewards people based on their behavior. We could understand this to mean that it is justifiable to treat Hamas militants the way Gilad Shalit was treated. However we also believe this only for God to do. We might also consider that our actions have repercussions. Simply put, two wrongs don’t make a write. In fact it would be possible to say that our treatment of prisoners would set in motion a never ending cycle of “measure for measure” further justifying the harsh treatment of all prisoners.

If we are to believe that peace is possible and that we can repair this fractured world, then it is necessary for us to see that all human beings- even the ones who make poor choices- are made in the image of God. We must also understand that those imperfect human beings have the opportunity to make right that which they have done wrong. If anything, if we don’t learn from their mistakes we will then be responsible for own teshuvah in the matter. Lastly, the Mishnah teaches that “in a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” In other words, following the suit towards Hamas prisoners is no way to act as a Jewish person. It is beneath us. In the prison world, which is often chaotic and lacking in the types of rules that keep free society in check, we should work to raise the standard of behavior and treat others as human beings rather than lowering them.

There are a few different ideas behind the idea of mourning associated with the seferat ha-omer (the counting of the days of the omer)

The most common explanation comes from the Talmud which states that thousands of students of Rabbi Akiva died in a plague as a result of their inability to treat each other with the proper respect. Yet there are some who believe that the death of Rabbi Akiva’s students could have also been a result of an unsuccessful revolt of Bar Kochba against the Romans (132-135 A.D). There are even some scholars who believe that Rabbi Akiva and other sages were martyred during the persecution of Emperor Hadrian.

Other scholars associate omer mourning practices with the loss of Jewish life in Europe during the Crusades. An even later association is made with the massacre of Ukrainian Jewry in 1648, which, as Rabbi Michael Strassfeld points out, occurred during the Omer.

Historians have cited parallels between the mourning practices associated with the omer and Roman customs during the month of May. Romans typically did not solemnize weddings during this month because the souls of the dead were believed to return to earth and required their own rites. Traditional Jewish practice holds that during a time of mourning: one should not attend a concert, no weddings are to be held, no hair it be cut, and no facial hair shorn. Theodor Gaster suggests that mourning of the omer period derives from uncertainty about the harvest, and this, in turn was extended to human fertility by prohibiting weddings.

Hoshana Rabbah literally means the Great Hoshana. This takes place on the seventh day of Sukkot. Generally it is celebrated by circling the synagogue 7 times instead of once like we usually do during each intermediate day of Sukkot, hence the title “great” as in many. At the end of the circling with the lulav and etrog (the four speciese) in hand we also beat the willow branches into the ground. On this celebratory day we take many or all of the Torah scrolls out of the ark and dance with them as we circle the synagogue.

According to Rabbi Michael Strassfeld, in his book The Jewish Holidays: Guide and Commentary, in temple times, branches were struck against the ground near the altar. This ritual probably symbolized a casting away of sins and is the reason that Hoshana Rabbah is still known as the final “day of judgment”. This was such an important custom to the rabbis of old that it was known to supersede Shabbat observance. Perhaps because it marks the very end of the High Holiday season when the gates of heaven actually close.

One custom, popularized by Kabbalists, but seems to have fallen out of practice in modernity is that of a tikkun leil hoshana rabbah, similar to the tikkun leil Shavuot, in which we also stay up all night studying. Communities would stay up all night on Hoshana Rabbah and study the book of Deuteronomy, the last of the five books of Moses, in order to join seamlessly with the reading of beginning of Genesis (the first book of Moses) on Simhat Torah.

From my standpoint it certainly couldn’t hurt. Judaism offers wonderful guidance and opinion on a number of issues critical to the Presidential race. One could consider Judaism’s approach towards accessible health care with the Jerusalem Talmud’s statement that it is, “forbidden for one to live in a city in which there is no physician.” Or, also stated in the Jerusalem Talmud in tractate Kiddushin, the prohibition from living in a city without a vegetable garden. One might think if a Presidential candidate knew of and believed in these texts they would be inclined not only to care for the health of their constituents but also the contribution that the environments makes to our lives on a regular basis.

Equally Judaism occupies strong views on justice complimented by compassion. We all know Moses argument with God in which he stated, “shall not the just of the earth deal justly?” (Genesis 18:23) when arguing over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. Shouldn’t we expect that our Presidents abide by the same rules and laws they enforce? And shouldn’t a Presidential candidate pursue justice actively like out Torah states in Deuteronomy (16:20), looking out for those who are innocent and seeking to punish those who deserve it? Perhaps if they did they might also know that the Babylonian Talmud expounds (tractate: Sanhedrin, page: 32b) on this idea, “Justice, justice, you shall pursue” as striving for equal opportunity for all- the same idea proposed by the Declaration of Independence in, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Don’t we all want to see our future cared for and bolster with accessible education? Couldn’t a Presidential candidate learn something from God’s charge in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 of, “Surely, this commandment [to study Torah] which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach. It is not in heaven, causing you to ask, ‘Who among us can go up to heaven and get it [Torah] for us and impart it to us that we may observe it?’ It is not beyond the sea causing you to ask, ‘Who among us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?’ No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it.” Education really should be as close to us as our own hearts, maybe then no one would worry if they will be able to participate in it.

Wouldn’t you also like to hear a Presidential candidate this year echo the same sentiment expressed by President John F. Kennedy when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do with your country.” Perhaps even more clearly stated by the Rabbis of the Mishnah (200 c.e.) in Pirke Avot (The Ethics of Our Fathers) when they taught, “It is not up to you to finish the task, but you are not permitted to desist from it either.”

Frankly, I’d love to see a Presidential debate open with the expression, hinei ma-tov u-manayim, shevet achim gam yachad, “How good and pleasant it is when brothers sit together.” Only to have them agree to abide by rabbinic forms of debate and learning demonstrated in Talmud by the practice of chevrutah, study partnerships, where the respect and dignity of the opposing view was more important than the actual correct answer. (Babylonian Talmud, tractate: Bava Metzia, page 84a). Too much gets lost along the way as the press conferences, advertisements, and interviews roll on loitered with vicious mud-slinging.

If I were asked to serve as a Presidential candidate’s PR advisor I’d pull from Leviticus 19:18 and my central campaign slogan would read, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” I don’t know if I could believe a candidate who also didn’t believe that all Americans deserved to live in the same privilege and luxury as themselves.

You see it all really depends on the type of world you want to see created in the next four years if we reelect and incumbent or select a new leader. The Jerusalem Talmud emphasizes, “As the generation so goes the leader, and as the leader so goes the generation.” According to the Talmud we share a destiny with our leaders- we have the power to select them, but their authority also shapes our lives. We have a responsibility to consider the lives we want to experience under government leadership so it behooves us to consider which Jewish values we would like to feel tangible in our candidates, but also in the world we will create with them.

Question: Regarding immunizations for children who will be attending day (Jewish or parochial) schools: What is the Jewish view on whether this is obligatory or optional? What Jewish values or ethics are involved in this question?

The Jewish view regarding immunizations for children at either Jewish day or parochial schools is one of obligation on the part of the parent to do so. The Jewish tradition considers fulfilling this obligation under and number of precepts which pertain to: The health and safety of the child, the health and safety of the community at large, the need for preventative health care and abiding by the law of the land. (All extensively addressed in Rabbi Joseph Prouser’s teshuvah, Jewish legal ruling, on this matter for the Conservative movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards)

The Book of Proverbs (23:12-13) points out, “Devote your heart to instruction, your ears to words of knowledge: Do not withhold corrective measures from your child. Rabbi Prouser directs us to Gersonides (14th century) comment to, “Protect your child, that he may not suffer physical death prematurely, and so that the part of him which allows him to attain eternal life, not die.” Ibn Ezra’s (12th century) point is similar: “Intervene so that the soul not die with the death of the body, and intervene so that your child not die before their appointed time.”

The Babylonian Talmud (tractate Kiddushin, page 29A) also points out certain obligations of the parent towards their child. One specifically noted is to teach them “how to swim”. The Talmud considers this with the thought in mind that if the child travels by boat, which subsequently begins to sink, the child would find themselves in danger if they did not know how to swim. This idea is focused by the standard that it is, k’fi tsrihan bilvad, “strictly on the basis of the children’s needs,” not the means or discretion of the parent. Commenting on this Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch teaches that this is an obligation on the parent to “watch carefully over his [the child’s] health. Protect him as far as lies in human power from sickness and deformity.

The obligations to participate in preventative health care in addition to abiding by the Halakhic concept that, “law of the land is the law” (dina d’malchutah dina) has much support within the Jewish tradition. Two such pieces of support can be found in both positive and negative commandments: “Take utmost care and watch yourselves scrupulously” (Deuteronomy 4:9) and “You shall not bring blood upon your house.” (Deuteronomy 22:8). Rabbi Elliot Dorff also offers that, “It would be a violation of Jewish law… for a Jew to refuse to be inoculated against a disease, at least where the inoculation has a proven track record of effectiveness. Jews, to the contrary, have a positive duty to have themselves and their children inoculated against all diseases where the preventive measure is effective and available.”

Prouser notes that participating in school mandated immunization programs helps achieve “herd immunity” which is also related to the biblical command to, “not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor”. If the law of the town, city, state, region, or country obligates participation in the program without obvious risk, we are obligated to abide. In some ways the Jewish tradition considers vaccinations a form of pikuah nefesh (saving a life). In doing so Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ruled that it is even permissible to “set aside Shabbat in order to receive an immunization, if foregoing the Sabbath opportunity would necessitate an unacceptable delay, thus creating a potentially life-threatening situation.”

In his teshuvah Rabbi Prouser concludes, “Timely administration of vaccines with a proven record of effectiveness and safety is ‘a basic and necessary requirement for appropriate pediatric care.’ Unless medically contraindicated for specific children, in extraordinary and compelling cases, parents have an unambiguous religious obligation to have their children immunized against infectious disease. By effectively removing their children as potential sources of contagion, and simultaneously contributing to “herd immunity,” parents fulfill a related religious obligation to remove hazardous conditions which imperil the public’s health and safety. Failure to immunize children against vaccine-preventable disease is a serious, compound violation of Jewish Law: there is no basis in Halakhah to support a parent’s request for a religious exemption from state-mandated immunizations.”

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN ANSWERS PROVIDED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL JVO PANEL MEMBERS, AND DO NOT
NECESSARILY REFLECT OR REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE ORTHODOX, CONSERVATIVE OR REFORM MOVEMENTS, RESPECTIVELY.